The PCspeak of Diversity

Wendy McElroy
July 10, 2003

The Supreme Court recently ruled
that universities could favor minority students for admission as long as
no race was automatically favored. The ambiguous decision might seem to
encourage open discussion but political correctness sometimes seems
determined that debate will not occur. PCspeak, like Newspeak in George
Orwell's classic novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four (1984), forms an
effective barrier.

The evolution of PCspeak parallels that of Newspeak. Consider the
evolution of public debate on affirmative action or, more broadly,
"diversity."

First, there is the introduction of doublethink. Doublethink occurs
when someone simultaneously accepts two contradictory beliefs as true. A
common argument for affirmative action: it is wrong to judge people on
the basis of skin color or gender; therefore, universities and employers
should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.

Third, language is controlled to define the ensuing debate. This is
accomplished by various means, including:

1) Embedding new terms. Some of the words embedded into the diversity
issue are "ethnocentric," "heteronormativity" "gender-specific," and
"patriarchal oppression." Their implications are not always obvious and
sometimes run counter to intuition. In 1984, dissidents are sent to labor
camps called JoyCamps. In modern universities, students are often
required to attend so-called "sensitivity training," which is a
reeducation process that includes public ridicule and humiliation for
whites and males because of their race and sex.

2) Reducing the number of words. In 1984, six words — arguably one
word modified five times — describe the entire span of right to wrong,
good to evil. They are good, plusgood, doubleplusgood, ungood, plusungood,
and doubleplusungood. Affirmative action uses two basic categories to
describe who is oppressed and deserving of legal privileges versus who is
oppressive and deserving of legal barriers: minorities and
non-minorities. Again, "minority" is a misleading word. Women are
minorities despite being a statistical majority. Hispanics are a minority
while those of Celtic descent, like me, are in the "majority." These two
categories obliterate such subtleties and describe the entire span of
oppressed to oppressor.

3) Eliminating "wrong" words and, thus, wrong ideas. In 1984, all
literature was being rewritten in Newspeak so that authors such as
Shakespeare either disappeared or were reinterpreted to serve Ingsoc's
purposes. Today, a school textbook review process is being conducted on a
national level to eliminate non-PC words and ideas. Accuracy is a
secondary consideration. Allegedly improper gender terms like "Founding
Fathers" are changed to proper ones like "Framers." American Indians no
longer are described as wearing braids, although many tribes did.
Inconvenient people become "unpersons" in Orwell's world; inconvenient
history becomes "unideas" in ours.

4) Changing the remaining words. Some words are simplified out of
existence. In 1984, the word "free" is used only in its simplest form —
e.g. my sweater is free of lint. Complex usage, such as "political
freedom," does not exist. Thus, the concept of "political freedom" does
not exist. Other words are gutted and inverted. Consider the current
usage of "diversity" in PCspeak. PC diversity tolerates no dissent on
issues such as race but mandates its conclusions through laws like
affirmative action. It imposes de facto quotas for one sex, not the
other. It demonizes and academically silences "wrong" culture such as
those expressing Western values.

Ask yourself a question similar to that Orwell posed to his readers.
Using Newspeak — or pure PCspeak — would it be possible to write the
following passage?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men,
deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any
form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of
the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

If some voices were still able to argue effectively against
PC-diversity, then the final stage of controlling language could be
implemented: punishing those who dissent. Dissenters could be called
hate-filled and a danger to society. Their objections could become hate
crimes punishable by law. A recent tax-funded study in Canada suggested
legally prosecuting men's advocacy sites, including US ones, under
Canadian hate speech law even though such sites are usually more
innocuous than many feminist ones. In 1984, dissent is called "crimethink."
We call it hate speech.

The villain of 1984 proclaims, "The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow
the range of thought." He concludes, "The Revolution will be complete
when the language is perfect."

It is time to reclaim the richness of the English language... verb by
verb, adjective by adjective. PC advocates must recognize that syllables
are not vessels of evil, words should not be the focus of law, and
disagreement is no crime.

Wendy McElroy is an author and columnist and maintains a websiteand a blog, iFeminists.Her complete bio is here.